Joined Sep 2006
3K Posts | 4+
Leading
Joined Jun 2007
10K Posts | 1K+
Norah Head
annoying -.-
but i have to disagree with BM here, why would a bitter feud keep fans AWAY from the spectacle?
Frankly speaking,the cat fight made everything much more interesting to me
Cos it was not how it used to be. It became more "rider focused". EVen in Doohans days it was still more brand oriented than it had become. And you have to remember the manufacturers had much more influence and prominence then.
Where today a fan may sport a yellow Rossi shirt, in the previous years it was usually a brand T shirt eg, Honda, Suzuki etc. So it was a new/diferrent style of championship. Those that were more brand interested walked, those that weren't either stayed or got interested for the first time. It just evolution really.
Joined Sep 2006
3K Posts | 4+
Leading
Pure fantasy, the 70's & early 80's Barry Sheene t-shirt, mug, poster ranges disproving that aptly. Do you just make it up as you go along? Actually don't answer that we already know.
EDIT: I tried to find that famous pick of Barry looking at a picture of a kid wearing a "Sheene is a ......" t-shirt, that's a classic.
Joined Jun 2007
10K Posts | 1K+
Norah Head
Yes we saw stands full of Sheene Tshirted fans with banners ........
Halfwit .....
Think about it, not just blurt out idiotic fairytales.
Joined Apr 2008
7K Posts | 3K+
Out of Nowhere
Yes we saw stands full of Sheene Tshirted fans with banners ........Halfwit .....Think about it, not just blurt out idiotic fairytales.
There's no need to resort that Barry. Someone's expressed an opinion contrary to your own - which often tends to be the case on here.
I wasn't fortunate enough to see Bazza race in GP during his heyday, (although I was at a transatlantic challenge one year when he was riding). Even so, I can attest to a huge level of support for him which remained in the early eighties - in spite of the fact that much of the banners and flags were improvised by his fans. He is the rider credited with launching the commercial appeal of the sport. Barry you don't live in the U.K at the time so you can't really comment. In the late '70's Sheene was a household name. He was endorsing products on the TV, there was mainstream coverage of racing for the first time, he appeared on chat shows, in magazines, and really was the first bike racing 'celebrity'. The whole notion of rider merchandise was started by Sheene, and this was universally sold at race meetings. The level of rider merchandise today really is down to Rossi, but the commercial impetus of rider over team was spearheaded by Sheene, and prior to that - to a lesser extent, Mike Hailwood.
Regarding team branding, not sure I agree with what you are saying here. Many race fans wore an HRC Rothmans team jacket for example, as much because of Spencer or Gardner say, as they did to support the marque. But certainly, there have always been those that align themselves to a make or a team irrespective of the rider, and you're right to say that team affiliation was definitely more prevalent pre-Rossi than it is now.
Which reminds me..where the hell is Gsfan these days?
Certainly brings up interesting arguments against a moto2 style premier class, the brand support is still strong and at least adds a little more interest to the current events.
Joined Jun 2007
10K Posts | 1K+
Norah Head
So where is the opinion in what Goatboy posted?
Now on Sheene ........ are you seriously suggesting that Sheen had a fanbase half the size of Rossi? Even 20%? 10%? Show me some photos. Show me the merchandise, sadly there is more "sheene merchandise" out theretoday than there ever was back then.
Agreed on the team thing, in some cases even oil companies had more kudos. eg. back then just about any "Castrol" team was the "ants pants"
GSfan .... yes he did seem old school ..... though perhaps even he has given up to evolution, what with Suzuki not showing him that there was much of a future there, and with pretty much flagrant disregard for getting involved with one of these newfangled "personality" riders. Hell they have disregard for everything really, they also got rid of the only two riders that got them results of some description, ie. Vermulen and Hopper.
ya you know
we always want to change everything or everyone
but in fact
it's not what we can do
__________________________________________________
Chevrolet shocks and struts
Shock absorber
Shocks and struts
we always want to change everything or everyone
but in fact
it's not what we can do
__________________________________________________
Chevrolet shocks and struts
Shock absorber
Shocks and struts
Joined Jun 2007
10K Posts | 1K+
Norah Head
Ease up on him Drill ....... the guy/girl obviously has problems.
I first thought he/she was a time traveller, cos he/she would just answer to the most random paleolithic threads as if he were living them right now in time .......
but I've since realised he/she is a greeting card writer who is suffering from the greeting card writer's equivalent of verbal RSI, and answers on the aniversary of an event ......
Ease up on him Drill ....... the guy/girl obviously has problems.
I first thought he/she was a time traveller, cos he/she would just answer to the most random paleolithic threads as if he were living them right now in time .......
but I've since realised he/she is a greeting card writer who is suffering from the greeting card writer's equivalent of verbal RSI, and answers on the aniversary of an event ......
Ahhhh,everything is clearer now.
I really enjoyed this post, it ties in very well with what I think about motorcycle racing and electronics. I am not someone who subscribes to the theory that electronic rider aids significantly reduce the riders input into results, or that they are responsible for the less than exciting racing that is increasingly common.
Rider aids cannot make a slow rider fast, or a fast rider slow. Traction control or wheelie control or any invasive form of engine management will only interfere when the bike reaches a pre-determined limit of efficient drive, but where that limit lies will depend (as it always has done) on the riders application of his body weight and operation of his controls. In terms of setup they can reward the intelligent and practical riders more but that is true of any setup parameter.
It is clear that electronics of this nature reduce the consequences of small errors made during the race, a safety feature on one hand but a reduction in visual stimulation on the other. I can see the grounds for fans to complain on that basis, because the bikes were more stimulating to watch about 6 years ago. Again I don’t think the quality of the racing suffers drastically as a result, except in the circumstance (which is increasingly rare) when two riders have approximately the same pace, are riding at close quarters and are looking to pass each other. Less small mistakes will make less chances for those passes to happen, but as we know finding a way past when riding close to others is not really an issue that needs addressing.
Anyway the reason why I chose your post here to write my thoughts is because I liked your description of what you consider ‘the reality of motorcycling’ and how it’s a ‘creative endeavor’. I think traditionally speaking you are absolutely right, and I think that is a major reason motorcycles appeal to a lot of us as much as they do. However I think that bike racing is becoming a known science at an increasing rate and that, more than any other factor is why we see the racing we do at the moment. The more measurable, understandable and predictable motorcycle racing becomes to the riders and engineers, the less exciting the racing is bound to be (as it becomes ever more similar to car racing) and we see the development of a ‘correct’ way to ride and a ‘correct’ way to build a bike.
Look even at moto2 and as this season has progressed we see less of the sudden changes in race pace that sees a rider surging forward or dropping back through the field and more racing typical GP where riders consistently ride at the pace they have established to be possible in practice. The racing is more exciting than motogp because the track is saturated in bikes, the technical level of the machinery is lower and the class is still relatively young, but the control ECU hasn’t made a dramatic difference to the way the bikes spread out from each other when they don’t happen to have the same race pace.
The point I’m making is that it is the high tech professional nature and fast paced development of the sport which is responsible for the change in racing over the last 10 years or so and the electronic rider aids are a part of that, but no more significant than chassis design, tyre or suspension technology. I don’t think good racing is impossible to achieve in the future, but I don’t think it’ll ever really be the same again because you can’t un-invent science.
This is the crux of the debate. MotoGP has two different camps of people--the 80/20 camp and the engineers. Normally, both camps could exist peacefully in a complimentary way, but one the engineering camp has become fundamentally corrupt b/c of the manufacturers, imo, which has strained the relationship. The technical trend in all motorsports these days is simply keeping up with the Jones'. They've got pneumatics? We need pneumatics. They use Brembo? We need Brembo. They use MM? We need MM. They use Ohlins? We need Ohlins.
Back in the day, the engineers were developing lots of different technologies, and they would race without a prayer of winning just b/c they wanted to develop their next gen engine or some other component. Where has that phenomenon gone? There are no development teams anymore. Honda does not have a two bike satellite squad focused on partial fuel throttle efficiency; instead, they have to make a rule that says everyone must develop partial throttle fuel efficiency (21L) b/c it's all about the Jones' and they can't get left behind if they develop a technology that isn't associated with speed. In this day and age, the manufacturers don't even play unless special technical rules are incorporated to meet the whims of the board of directors (see BMW in DTM). It's sickening.
Engineering has been fundamentally corrupted by "Concordes" imo. If you don't win, you don't get paid, and in sports like F1, the difference between winning and losing can be hundreds of millions of dollars. Furthermore, the manufacturers and marketing stooges have been pushing the idea that motorsports is all about unlimited technology and blue skies progress and not about the inexact science of exploration or the concept of "sport". The fans naturally assume that the team who wins is the best (nevermind that we have no idea whether they've made a single useful production technology). If the manufacturers lose, but they are not developing an alternative technology, everyone rightfully assumes that they are half-assed slackers and their brand is sullied with ignobility. Racing is more dangerous for your company in the 21st century than it is beneficial.
Electronics are a symptom of the real problem which is that the manufacturers will do anything regardless of how unsporting it may be in the name of winningm (e.g. using a computer to regulate a rider's throttle input so he can only ride certain lines). This is permissible as long as the lap times go down. Wow. That's deep.
Certain things are sacred regardless of what we tell ourselves. Throttle control is the single most sacred skill in motorcycle racing. Conveniently, there is zero restraint on the manufacturers in regards to throttle control. Automatic steering via electronic steering damper and electronic suspension? BANNED & BANNED. Auto shifting via auto gearboxes? BANNED. Electronic clutches? BANNED. ABS? BANNED. Traction control and throttle input electronics? UNLIMITED.
Until i got to this part i was wondering if you'd taken on board any of my post, then you confirmed that you haven't. I don't really know why you quoted me. I don't think the one line style of the racing at the moment is any more to do with traction control than any other form of technical development, and i think throttle control is still valuable and rewarded.
I've read your post twice now, and I've understood it twice. If you thought that the rider had control of the throttle, you wouldn't have any issues with banning electronics b/c it wouldn't affect the sport at all. You are reconciling two mutually exclusive concepts (rider aid and rider control) b/c it allows electronic development to proceed with no negative consequences. The idea that rider aids and rider control (of the throttle) can occupy the same space is a logical impossibility, and most of the riders disapprove of electronic aids so there is ample empirical evidence to support my opinion.
The only reason I took the time to write my post was to identify the source of rider aids (money not technology) in hopes that it would shed some light on the concept of technology. Technology as we know it is just a material thing. The only real technology is the adaptability of the human mind and our affinity for spontaneous innovation. You don't sacrifice the supercomputer in the rider's head so that an engineer can mount a trick ipad on the dash. That's a zero sum game that obeys the laws of manufacturer politics while eroding the sporting foundation of MotoGP.
You have to pick one or the other. If rider aids are going to continue, the riders have to cede control to the electronics technicians.
I completely disagree, you are suggesting that a rider using fine throttle control could ride the following lap opening the throttle to the stop right from the apx of every turn and on one of todays bikes would post the same laptime. You know that isn't true.
We know how rider aids function as a mathematical principle so there is no reason to examine what would or wouldn't happen on track. All you need is to understand the concept of functions. Throttle is no longer a 1:1 relationship with the fuel injection. Wide open throttle can correspond with thousands or millions (I don't know how detailed the software is) of fuel injection mappings. WOT can also correspond with seemingly unlimited variations of power at the rear wheel.
There is no reason to examine the on track results, but just for the record, the riders have already said on numerous occasions that they crack the throttle wide open at times and let the electronics handle the rest. I'm not using that as proof b/c I don't need to, but the riders say it quite frequently.
The only form of electronic rider aids I'm willing to accept are those which improve the connection (1:1 relationship with the throttle and the power to the rear wheel). Connection software would be an example of a rider happily relinquishing some control of the throttle in order to get predictability. The only connection they work on now, is the predictability of the throttle position and traction control.
Imo, any and all forms of spin control, wheelie control, torque-meters, or location-specific fuel-mapping should be banned, but unfortunately for us, electronics is one of the last bastions of an aggressive competition. The manufacturers will maintain aggressive competition (horsepower) at all costs. Electronics is the last place to extract power over race distance b/c the fuel is limited to a paltry 21L. That's what this is all about. The MSMA crapping all over the sanctity of sport so they can keep their brand-battle alive. They will not add fuel, cap horsepower, or give up electronics b/c then the riders would have control over how good or how bad the bike appeared to be.
The manufacturers genuinely care what the road riders and journos think about their bikes, but they can't let the best riders on the face of the planet determine which brand makes the best bike. Do you see how royally screwed up this masquerade is, Tom? It's much much bigger than "I like technology" or "I don't like technology".
the sanctity of the sport? what the hell are you on about, of course the riders have control over how good or bad the bikes appear to be. That's why the teams all spend millions every year trying to get the best riders they can. If the power was really in the hands of the factories they would do a Rossi equivalent and sack their 'Aliens' to win the championship with a lesser rider to prove its about the bike. The brand war has been going on for ages, and the factories have always strived to make their bikes better and better, its nothing new.
Really. You think Pedrosa found a second a lap in his riding style this season? or has Lorenzo lost his abilities? Maybe Bautista and Capirossi really are that bad? They hire the best rider simply so that they don't surrender and edge.
How many times do Honda have to explain that they wanted to beat Rossi in 2004 to prove it was the bike and not him ? How long will it take for you to understand that the last place to extract performance (horsepower war) in a control tire sport with 21L of fuel is the electronic application of the throttle?
I'm not angry, I'm genuinely asking. Once you see the big picture, it will at least let you understand what is at stake. They are controlling the throttle b/c it is the last bastion of the brand-war. If they add fuel, there will be an 81mm bore horsepower cap. If they eliminate rider aids, it will be more like 100/0 or 90/10 b/c the rider will control fuel efficiency which would be a disaster for the MSMA. The MSMA are not doing anything good. They are interfering (as much as possible) with the riders right hand so that they can exploit performance advantages.
So you say they don't hire the best riders because that's what they need to win, they do it so they don't surrender an edge. I really don't understand how you could think thats different. They know they need the best rider they can get because thats what makes the difference. Yes Honda wanted to show their bike was so good they could beat Rossi, but take a moment to ask yourself how that went for them. You are speaking as if motogp bikes ride themselves and the riders just sit in their seats waiting for the magical electronics to open, close and modulate the throttle lap after lap.
You are writing as if you don't think the rider effects results any more and its all up to the bike, but everyone who watches bike racing can see thats not true. The factories want to advertise their product as the best, so they want to win. That means aggressive development and trying to make the best bike, it also means trying to hire the best riders and the best team. It's racing 101 and i don't know why you are trying to make such a meal of understanding it
Similar threads
